If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: is the sentence correct

The sentence comes form an activity in which I was suppose to transform a sentence.

The original sentence:
He probably damaged his tendon. LIKELIHOOD (the word I have to use in a transformed sentence).

You're welcome.

I don't know why, but for some reason I think my sentence sounds better than the correct answer. Of course, the transformation is completely correct. There's no problem with that. It seems to me, though I can't say why, that "likelihood" would somehow fit better in another context.

Here's a usage note for "likely". It seems that this activity favors "likelihood" over the more common and ordinary "likely".

USAGE NOTE:Used as an adverb likely is most commonly preceded by a modifier such as very or quite: He will quite likely require some help with his classes. But the unmodified use of likely is common enough in educated writing, and though it might be better avoided in highly formal style, it should not be regarded as incorrect: They'll likely buy a new car this year. See Usage Note at liable</B>.

Re: is the sentence correct

Thank you X Mode for comments.
I think that (maybe) the activity was focused on using a noun , as "likelihood is a noun, and we have an adverb in the original sentence.

I'm interested in how you hear the sentence below. Is it correct? does it have the same meaning as your sentence?

He was likely to damage his tendon.

thanks

Yes, the activity simply required you to use a noun instead of an adverb.

__________________

The following sentence is different from your first sentence.

"He was likely to damage his tendon."

That sentence means: There was a good chance that he was going to damage his tendon." We could reword it.

He would likely damage his tendon. - This sentence can mean the same as your sentence. It needs context to find out what it really means though.

He kept on playing even though his doctor told him that he would likely damage his tendon.

He kept on playing even though his doctor told him that he was likely to damage his tendon.

Those two sentences mean the same thing. He may or may not have damaged his tendon. We don't know that unless we continue with more context.

Your original sentence, though in the past as well, has a different meaning, of course. We know there's a good chance he damaged his tendon in your first sentence.

first example sentence in this thread: There is a likelihood that he damaged his tendon.

My suggestion has the same meaning as your transformation.

my suggestion based on the transformation: It's likely that he damaged his tendon.

Your second example has a different meaning:

second example in context:

He kept on playing even though his doctor told him that he would likely damage his tendon.

He kept on playing even though his doctor told him that he was likely to damage his tendon.

Both sentences have the meaning of "that's what he was going to do (if he kept on playing)". "Would" is used in the same way as "was to".

"would likely" = "was likely to"

would damage - was to damage

would - was to

note: In other contexts, "would" can simply be used, as it more often is, to express a hypothetical idea.

In the following sentence, "was to" can't be used in place of "would". Here, "would" is not used to speak of what he was going to do in the past. It could be used that way, however, with the right context.

He can't keep playing. Why? If he kept on playing, he would likely damage his tendon.